Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Conn, Angelina V From: Tingley, Connie S Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:21 PM To: 'Kim Irwin' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'jmolitor @prodigy.net'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: HbD testimony for BZA re: Lubvaitch of Indiana project Thank you for your comments. A copy of your testimony on your letterhead will be given to the BZA Board members at tonight's meeting. Connie Tingley BZA Secretary 571 -2419 From: Kim Irwin jmailto:kirwin @acsm.orgj Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:12 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Keeling, Adrienne M; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: HbD testimony for BZA re: Lubvaitch of Indiana project Dear Ms. Tingley, Please accept this written testimony (below and attached on our letterhead) in advance of tonight's BZA hearing. Please let me know if you need any additional information at this time. Thank you! Kim Dear President Hawkins and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I am writing on behalf of the Health by Design coalition regarding the Lubavitch of Indiana project, proposed at 2640 W. 96 Street, which is scheduled before the BZA at this evening's meeting. I understand that there are concerns among neighbors and that oppositional testimony is anticipated as related to the proposed multi -use path and the potential for increased pedestrian and bicycle use in the area. I am not familiar with all of the details of this project, nor am I in a position to address all of the potential issues of this variance; however, I hope that the project will not be compromised based on the proposed multimodal facilities, and I urge your strongest support for their inclusion. You, as the City of Carmel's leadership and staff, have such a strong tradition and demonstrated commitment to wise transportation and land -use planning. Your `complete streets' approach to building infrastructure that accommodates cyclists and pedestrians has yielded significant benefits for your residents and the community at large; this site provides yet another opportunity to enhance and connect your transportation network. As you may know, Health by Design is a coalition working in Central Indiana and beyond to address the connections between public health, transportation systems, and community design. We promote mobility choices because they increase physical activity, improve safety and enhance air quality through reduced automobile emissions. This is in addition to the benefits of economic development, connectivity and access, reduced congestion, energy independence, and community engagement that result from a balanced transportation system and smart growth and development. We enjoy a strong alignment with your ongoing efforts and hope that this project will come to serve as another excellent example of good policy and practice. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can answer any questions or provide any additional information. Thank you for your leadership and service. 1 Sincerely, Kim Irwin Kim Irwin, MPH Health by Design Executive Director, Alliance for Health Promotion 401 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Direct line: 317.352.3844 Mobile: 317.701.0093 Fax: 317.634.7817 kirwin @acsm.org www.healthbvdesignonline.org 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Tingley,`Connie S Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:20 PM To: 'Broadripple' Cc: Conn, Angelina V; 'jmolitor @prodigy.net'; Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: RE: BZA hearing this evening Thank you for your comments. A copy of your email will be given to the BZA Board members at tonight's meeting. Connie Tingley BZA Secretary 571 -2419 From: Broadripple jmailto: broadrioDIe (aunitedpackaaeliauors.coml Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:14 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: rabbalubavitchindiana.com Subject: BZA hearing this evening Connie, I am a manager for United Package Liquors having managed Hamilton Beverage in Carmel for the company for 5 years. Additionally I have served as the Cantor for Carmel's first synagogue Shaarey Tefilla for the past 20 years. It was my hope to attend the BZA hearing this evening and give my "2 cents worth" on an item being considered but find that I have a schedule conflict. After consulting with my dear friend Luci Snyder of the City Council, she suggested I write to you and ask that my comments be distributed to the BZA board at their meeting tonight. I have been involved with Rabbi Abraham Grossbaum and Lubavitch /Chabad of Indiana for close to 30 years and have been impressed with the work they do and the responsible manner in which that have become involved in the various communities in Indiana where that have a presence Indianapolis, Bloomington, Northwest Indiana (The Region), etc. It is my understanding that they had applied for and been granted a variance to develop a property near the NW corner of 96 and Town Rd. After making adjustments in order to preserve older mature trees and being told they were still OK, it seems they have now been asked to re -apply and that there may be some neighbor concerns. I would like to voice my support for the approval of the matter before the board. Chabad Lubavitch is an excellent organization who will enhance our Carmel community as well as be responsible neighbors. I am sorry not to be able to attend, but urge the approval of their motion most strongly Arnie Lewin Store Manager and Fine Wine Consultant United Package Liquors Indianapolis, IN Phone: 317- 257 -3600 Fax: 317- 396 -3880 arnie@unitedpackageliquors.com broadripple@unitedpackageliquors.com www.unitedpackageliquors.com Proud supporter of the United Hope Foundation www.unitedhopefoundation.org A Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail 1 This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Privileges are not waived. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Messages sent via E -mail are sent over the Internet and may not be transmitted in an encrypted or secure form. Caution is urged in the use of confidential information. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. 2 Page 1 of 1 Tingley, Connie S From: Broadripple broadripple @unitedpackageliquors.com] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:14 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Cc: rabbi @lubavitchindiana.com Subject: BZA hearing this evening Connie, I am a manager for United Package Liquors having managed Hamilton Beverage in Carmel for the company for 5 years. Additionally I have served as the Cantor for Carmel's first synagogue Shaarey Tefilla for the past 20 years. It was my hope to attend the BZA hearing this evening and give my "2 cents worth" on an item being considered but find that I have a schedule, conflict. After consulting with my dear friend Luci Snyder of the City Council, she suggested I write to you and ask that my comments be distributed to the BZA board at their meeting tonight. I have been involved with Rabbi Abraham Grossbaum and Lubavitch /Chabad of Indiana for close to 30 yearsand have been impressed with the work they do and the responsible manner in which that have become involved in the various communities in Indiana where that have a presence Indianapolis, Bloomington, Northwest Indiana (The Region), etc. It is my understanding that they had applied for and been granted a variance to develop a property near the NW corner of 96 and Town Rd. After making adjustments in order to preserve older mature trees and being told they were still OK, it seems they have now been asked to re -apply and that there may be some neighbor concerns. I would like to voice my support for the approval of the matter before the board. Chabad /Lubavitch is an excellent organization who will enhance our Carmel community as well as be responsible neighbors. I am sorry not to be able to attend, but urge the approval of their motion most strongly Arnie Lewin Store Manager and Fine Wine Consultant United Package Liquors Indianapolis, IN Phone: 317- 257 -3600 Fax: 317- 396 -3880 arnie @unitedpackageliquors.com broadripple @unitedpackageliquors.com www.unitedpackageliquors.com Proud supporter of the United Hope Foundation www.unitedho efoundation.or A Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this a -mail This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and /or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Privileges are not waived. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format, Messages sent via E -mail are sent over the Internet and may not be transmitted in an encrypted or secure form. Caution is urged in the use of confidential information. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. 9/26/2011 l 4 401 West Michtga Street I. I Indianapolis, IN 46202 -3233 I I i 317- 352-384 4 phone i d l 1 1 l 1 e_., 317-634-7817 fax vs w w healthbydcsignanlirt org E� t+e tsng buuit Pnvdr6rmanis to Poste o o Ithl tEis�y "t a i ALUANCE FOR NCALTki PROMOTION ih.,. M Carmel Clay. Board of Zoning- Appeals c/o Connie Tingley, Administrative Assistant Carmel City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 September 26,. 2011 Dear President Hawkins and Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, I am writing on behalf.of ;the Health by, Design coalition regarding the Lu "bavitch•of Indiana project, proposed at 2640 W. 96`" treet, w is scheduled before the BZA at this evening's meeting. I understand that ttiere concerns among neighbors and that oppositional testimony is anticipated as related to the proposed multi -use path and the potential for increased pedestrian and bicycle use in the i :i i; i,i; area. I am not familiar with all' of the details of this project, nor am I in a position to address all of the potential issues of this variance; however, I hope that the project will not be compromised based on the proposed multimodal facilities, and I urge your strongest support for their inclusion. You, as the City of Carmel': leadership and staff, have such a strong tradition and demonstrated commitment to wise transportation and land -use planning. Your 'complete streets' approach to building infrastructure that'accommodates cyclists and pedestrians has yielded significant benefits for your residents and the community at large; this site provides yet another opportunity to enhance and connect your transportation network. As you may know, Health by Design isa coalition working in Central Indiana and beyond to address the connections between public health, transportation systems, and community design. We promote mobility choices because they increase physical activity,. improve safety and enhance air quality through reduced automobile emissions. This is. in addition to the benefits of economic development, connectivity and access, reduced congestion, energyindependence, and community engagement that result from a balanced transportation system and smart growth and development. We enjoy a strong ,alignment your ongoing efforts and hope that this project will come to serve as another excellent example of good policy and practice. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can answer any questions or provide any additional information. Thank you for your leadership and service. Sincerely, J.,&,,,, Kim Irwin Executive Director ,i, ,a Robert and Nancy McLaughlin 9649 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Subject: Lubavitch of Indiana Petition We are homeowners in, the Shelborne Green subdivision and our home borders the West side of the proposed Lubavitch site. We are writing to express our concerns and opposition to the proposed Lubavitch of Indiana project. Our reasons include: Breach of trust. 1) The Rabi chose to not honor his word with respect to leaving mature and healthy trees and foliage on the West side of their property in the no -build buffer area. A crew began removing all trees and foliage without a proper survey and encroached into the no -build zone. It was necessary for me to personally stop the work in order to avoid further destruction of the natural barrier that separates our property. 2) After failing to move forward with the project within the specified time frame, Lubavitch sought an extension. That petition revealed a completely different site plan from what had been approved by the BZA. It should concern the BZA that Lubavitch attempted to circumvent the proper application process. Safety and privacy. The newest plan submitted routes vehicle and pedestrian traffic to the extreme West side of the property, which creates a series of concerns with respect to noise and intrusion into private residences. Frankly, the lot size and configuration are not adequate for the proposed project. The latest attempt to ignore the obvious is offensive. Lubavitch was well aware of the lot size (width) issues from the beginning and chose to continue regardless of homeowner and city objections (the first application was denied partly due to the lot width problem. Adjacent residential properties in Shelborne Green represent homeowner investments of roughly $2,000,000. The negative impact this project will have on home values is considerable despite the petitioner's claim that values would not be adversely affected. Homeowners in the neighborhood have already suffered a decline in values and should not be expected to lose even more value because of this ill- conceived project. Respectfully submitted, Robert J. McLaughlin Prepared for September 26, 2011 Public Hearing by Steve Hantz Docket Nos. 11050019 SU (Special Use) Amend, 11060016 V, 11060017 V Lubavitch of Indiana proposed Orthodox Jewish place of worship, religious schooling and related religious activities This letter is in opposition to the special use variance requested by Lubavitch of Indiana. My wife, son, daughter and I live at 9605 Cypress Way in Carmel, immediately adjacent to the Lubavitch property. Our opposition to the lot width variance and proposed Lubavitch building on the property east of Shelborne Greene has been documented in past hearings with the BZA, first on September 25th, 2006 and again on October 22nd, 2007. The lot width variance is once again a concern as the building plans have changed since their earlier approval by this board. The entry drive no longer has a cul de sac which was deemed to meet the 200ft. lot width requirement. Further, 1 would once again like to address the last section of the Application for Special Use /Special Use Amendment Approval Request required by the BZA. This section contains 5 statements /-questions and is entitled: FINDINGS OF FACT SPECIAL USE. I would like to read and respond to each of these 5 statements. 1) The premises in question is particularly physically suitable for the proposed Special Use because: The premises in question is not physically suitable for the proposed special use. The building is too wide for the property The requested site -width variance is proof of that. 200 feet is the required lot width, this lot is 135 feet. 2) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect economic factors, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property values because: The special use will adversely effect surrounding property values. Properties now abutting an empty wooded lot will most definitely be worth less if they are adjoining a 2 story 14,000+ sq. ft. building 20 feet from their property line. 3) The Special Use will be consistent with social /neighborhood factors, such as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under current zoning in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity because: Compatibility with existing uses should call into question the compatibility of a hidden parking area and the back yards of several residential property owners and their families. 4) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and fire protection because: Adequacy and availability of police and fire protection, again as it relates to a hidden parking area, with limited access 800 ft. from the entrance is a concern. 5) The Special Use will not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed because: The special use will definitely affect pedestrian traffic, and vehicular as well. The rabbi informed our group that his religion requires that followers walk to the building on Saturdays. To say that this special use will not adversely effect pedestrian traffic is absurd. There are no sidewalks along 96th street. There are no shoulders. Traffic on this section of 96th street is always heavy and is very dangerous for the pedestrian as well as the vehicles trying to avoid them. The 36 parking spaces on the premises also suggests substantial vehicular traffic. I believe the Lubavitch property should retain its current zoning, as not one of the six requirements listed under the Findings of Fact section of the Special Use Approval Request have been met. Although it is regrettable that the property was purchased with the assumption that the zoning could be easily changed, it is my hope that the land will be used as intended by the original zoning and by the requirements of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for your time and consideration. *dShelle)2tz 9605 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 317 471 -8145 steve.hantz @sbcglobal.net Gmail Fwd: Zoning Page 1 of 2 IQ G n. Dianne Gaughan <diannegaughan @gmail.com> by( ;t'. k Fwd: Zoning 1 message Fern Mirkin <fmirkin @gmail.com> Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:46 AM To: Dianne Gaughan <diannegaughan @gmail.com> Forwarded message From: Fern Mirkin <fmirkin a(�gmail.com> Date: Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Zoning' To: Bill Dinsmore <bdinsmoreayourchurch.com> Dear Bill, Thank you for your prompt reply. The Jewish organization that owrBthe property next door is Lubavitch. They are followers of the Lubavitch rebbe. Their 'mission' is remedial (many Jews have little Jewish education) and communal- to provide a Jewish 'home' for Jews in areas remote from Jewish population centers emphasizing the joy inherent in living a holy life, humbly. They are'chassidic, Orthodox Jews. Does that answer your question? believe -they will be considerate, interesting neighbors for your church. Their welcoming, joyous practice, of Judaism; mirrors my experience of your congregation's practice,, of Christianity, when I have been there as Kathy and Jim William's guest. Additionally, they have redesigned their building and land use proposal to accommodate the concerns of the homeowners of the properties on the other side of their land. The improved proposal is much nicer, in my opinion, than the one that won zoning approval in 2007. A few of the neighboring tract homeowners have stated their objection to anything but a single family home being built on the Lubavitch property, or it being left as a vacant wooded lot. Lubavitch has a small congregation here; it will stay small for the reason that most observant Jews choose to live in Jewish population and cultural centers. The property is 6 o_,,,,,r"' suitable for Lubavitch, and Lubavitch's facility will be, I think, a suitable step-down and buffer between your large facility and parking /traffic, and the tract housing on the other side. Orthodox Jews do not drive on Shabbat or Jewish holidays. Traffic will be minimal. Property values will likely benefit, because the core congregants will have to live walking distance to the shul. There is a walking /biking path planned, as of 2007, for 96th street. Was it built yet? I typed all this mostly for my own benefit- practice for the Zoning meeting. Thank you again, as ever, Fern Mirkin The phone number of the City Zoning Department is 571 -2417. The City Building and Zoning Dept. supports the Lubavitch proposal, as they did in 2007. Rabbi Avi Grossbaum's number is 698 -6724. The Zoning Board are political appointees. We( the Jewish community- all of whom are indebted to Lubavitch for their Chabad Houses world -wide) would deeply appreciate your support and advocacy•for this zoning variance approval. https: /mail.google. com /mail /?ui= 2 &ik =be3 c94d5 6c &view =pt&search= inbox &th 132912... 9/23/2011 Gmail Fwd: Zoning Page 2 of 2 On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Bill Dinsmore <bdinsmore aayourchurch.com> wrote: Fern, I received your voicemail yesterday about the zoning meeting. It was not me that you spoke with but more than likely was Bruce Smith our Executive Director of Operations. I will speak to him about the meeting on. Sept 26t at 6:00 PM in City Hall. I could not understand the name of the building to which you were referring in your voicemail. Would you please provide that for me? Again, I will talk to Bruce. Thanks. Bill Dinsmore Executive Pastor for Ministry College Park Church 2606 W 96th St., Indianapolis, In 46268 Email: bdinsmore(a�yourchurch.com Cell Phone: 317 -600 -7565 Church Office: 317 875 -0282 00 Tra college church Fern Mirkin Fern Mirkin https: mail. google .com /mail ?ui= 2 &ik =be3 c94d56c &view =pt &search inbox &th 132912... 9/23/2011 Conn, Angelina V From: Tingley, Connie S Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 8:18 AM To: 'aosterholzer @gmail.com' Subject: FW: Concerns for August 22nd BZA Meeting Attachments: Carmel BZA.pdf Mr. Osterholzer, Thank you for your comments. I will give copies to the Board members at the Aug 22 "d meeting. For your information the Lubavitch dockets have been tabled, by the petitioner, to the Sept 26 BZA meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Connie Tingley BZA Secretary 571 -2419 From: andy osterholzer mailto :aosterhblzerCa�gmail.coml Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:12 PM To: Tingley, Connie S Subject: Concerns for August 22nd BZA Meeting Hello Ms. Tingley, I would like to submit the attached document to The Board of Zoning Appeals. It is in regards to the appeal being brought forth by Lubavitch of Indiana, which is being addressed on August 22nd. Thank you. Andrew Osterholzer 1 9643 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 August 18, 2011 City of Carmel Dept. of Community Services One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Attention: Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals Re: Lubavitch of Indiana 2640,.W. 96 Street, Docket Nos.: 11050019 SU Amend, 11060016, 11060017 I, Andrew Osterholzer, would 'like to submit the following concerns about the proposed project referenced above. My home is located in Shelborne Green and my lot is adjacent to the western edge of the subject property. Credibility Prior to purchasing, my home, west of the property in question, I called and spoke to multiple Cannel departments. o All of them assured me that due to lot width and zoning, nothing could realistically be built there accept a private residence. Lot width minimums are established for a reason to build on anything narrower than the 200' minimum creates problems on many levels. o This is not a case of a few feet below the minimum. This property is significantly narrower. The handling of the. variance request is suspect. The original plan was denied. Next, the useless cul -de -sac was created to meet frontage requirements. Subsequently, the cul -de- sac was removed and now the petitioner is "simply asking for a renewal." In short, it feels like the public is being harmed by clever abuse of the system. Security Thefts and or vandalism that might occur because of discrete access to the back of homes. Indecent or illegal :t ti iti: s that tnay occur in the hidden parking lot behind the building and in the backyard of residents. Safety Contractors service providers observing young children playing in their backyards (these people are not our neighbors who are identifiable and accountable) o No less than 18 young children reside on the immediate West side of the subject property. If children wander out of our backyards, they would no longer be wandering into a neighbor's yard or:a field. They would be wandering into a parking lot or road. Page 1 of 3 The proposed plan calls for a retention pond. I don't need to remind the City about the number of children that have drowned in retention ponds recently. This one wouldn't be at the front of the neighborhood far away from homes. It would be in our backyards. The owner suggests repeatedly that many people might walk or ride their bikes to the property. 96 street is very busy and very narrow. I myself have almost hit pedestrians on several occasions even while trying not to. Additionally, I have almost been hit by oncoming traffic as they try to navigate around foot and bike traffic on 96 street. Obviously, snow on the side of the road makes this an even bigger problem. Pollution Water run -off: My home is nearly centered on the length of the property. In the spring I could look out my window and clearly see standing water that spanned the width of the property and ran for 75 yards in either direction. It looked like a pond and was there for weeks. Even with the most elaborate engineering, I am not confident that the water management solutions will adequately protect neighboring properties from harm. Noise: Many times in the morning I am awoke by the sounds of refuse trucks at College Park Church driving in to pick up dumpsters and then slamming them down on the ground. The residents of Shelborne Greene surely do not want to experience that noise when it is adjacent to their properties. Aside from trucks, there would be the usual sounds of a commercial public property such as car engines and doors, and people yelling. Light: With the property being so close to homes, even the best and shortest light poles will annoy the neighbors. Not lighting the property is not an option due to the afore mentioned safety concerns. In addition to lot and building lights; vehicle headlights will also prove to be annoying as they sweep across our homes at night. Resale Value The negative impacts listed above are quite obvious to potential buyers, not to mention the aesthetic impact to our properties. Short of the owner planting two staggered rows of 40' pine trees along the length of the property, .there is no way for the proposed plan not to negatively impact the value of the neighboring properties. Furthernnore, the plan could not accommodate such a solution, because once again, the lot is too narrow to have both the trees and the structure. In fact, the plan calls for the building to be nearly on the lot line. This positions the footings well within the drip line of the few remaining mature trees that are on the property= line.: Most likely these frees will die soon after the project is completed. to As a former real estate :agent, I know that not only will the resale value of the adjacent homes be affected (many of whom paid more for their premium lots), all of the homes in the neighborhood will be negatively affected as comparable listings drop in value. Responsibility The owner readily admits that this facility is designed to serve a small congregation. What happens when the congregation grows (as most things do) and the facility no longer meets their needs? Obviously the property cannot support additional structures. If they move to a new location, what sort of business will move -in? How will the city protect its citizens from being harmed further? Page 2 of 3 It is well known that there is an over supply of commercial type properties available. If the owner were to establish their place of worship at one of these available properties, it would help increase the value of all commercial properties in that there would be one less vacancy. It is irresponsible for the city to make such a significant and harmful variance to accommodate a few individuals when it does so at the expense of the residents of Shelborne Greene as well as all owners of commercial properties in the area. Sincerely, Andrew Osterholzer Page 3 of 3 Conn, Angelina V From: Dave Coots [DCoots @chwlaw.com] Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 8:12 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Rabbi Avrohom Grossbaum; dlockwood @idarchitecture.com; Brandon Schreeg Subject: BZA meeting Angie, due to previous travel commitments and the need to schedule a meeting with the homeowners groups, I request that the Lubavitch application be continued from the August 22 meeting and placed on the September 26 agenda. I will send a letter to those residents we noticed for the Public Hearing advising them of the change. Thank you. Prepared for July 25, 2011 Public Hearing by Steve Hantz Docket Nos. 11050019 SU (Special Use) Amend, 11060016 V, 11060017 V Lubavitch of Indiana proposed Orthodox Jewish place of worship, religious schooling and related religious activities This letter is in opposition to the special use variance requested by Lubavitch of Indiana. My wife, son, daughter and I live at 9605 Cypress Way in Carmel, immediately adjacent to the Lubavitch property. Our opposition to the lot width variance and proposed Lubavitch building on the property east of Shelborne Greene has been documented in past hearings with the BZA, first on September 25th, 2006 and again on October 22nd, 2007. The lot width variance is once again a concern as the building plans have changed since their earlier approval by this board. The entry drive no longer has a cul de sac which was deemed to meet the 200ft. lot width requirement. Further, I would once again like to address the last section of the ApplicationforSpecial Use /Special Use Amendment Approval Request required by the BZA. This section contains 5 statements questions and is entitled: FINDINGS OF FACT— SPECIAL USE. I would like to read and respond to each of these 5 statements. 1) The premises in question is particularly physically suitable for the proposed Special Use because: The premises in question is not physically suitable for the proposed special use. The building is too wide for the property The requested site -width variance is•proof of that. 200 feet is the required lot width, this tot is 135 feet. 2) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect economic factors, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property values because: The special use will adversely effect- sunrounding property values. Properties now abutting an empty wooded lot will most definitely be worth less if they are adjoining a 2 story 14,000+ sq. ft. building 20 feet from their property line. 3) The Special Use will be consistent with sociaUneighborhood.factors, such as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under currentzoning in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity because: Compatibility with existing uses should call into question the compatibility of a hidden parking area and the back yards of several residential property owners and their families. 4) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and fire protection because: Adequacy and availability of police and fire protection,, again as it relates to a "hidden parking area, with limited access 800 ft from the entrance is a. concern. 5) The Special Use will not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed because: The special use will definitely affect pedestrian traffic, and vehicular as well: The rabbi infonned our group that his religion requ res that followers wall: to the :buildintt on Sahrrdays. To sav that th s_special use will -.not adversely effect pedestrian traffic is absurd. There are no sidewalks along 96th street_ There are no shoulders. Traffic on this section of 96th street is always heavy and is very dangerous for the pedestrian as well as the vehicles trying to avoid them, The .34. king spaces on he. premises. .also: s[r t,Nsts.s-.btt atia1 v-t icitlar:traffic. 1 believe the Lnbav'itch property should retain its current zoning, as not. one of the six requirements 17: ted under the Findings of Fact section of the Special Use Approval Request have been met. Although it is regrettable that the property was purchased with the assumption that the zoning could be easily changed, it is my hope that the land will be used as intended by the original zoning and by the requirements of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for your time and consideration. Steve and Shelley I-lantz 9605 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 317- 471 -8145 steve.hantz @sbcglobal.net Conn,,Angelina V From: Steve Hantz [steve.hantz @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 6:53 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Public Hearing Docket Nos. 11050019 SU (Special Use) Amend, 11060016 V, 11060017 V Lubavitch of Indiana Attachments: BZALubavitchLetter07- 25- 11.pdf Attached is a letter for BZA members re: Public Hearing Docket Nos. 11050019 SU (Special Use) Amend, 11060016 V, 11060017 V Lubavitch of Indiana Steve Hantz 1 KATHLEEN AND STEPHEN NOONE 9653 CYPRESS WAY CARMEL, IN 46032 (317) 870-7513 Transmitted via e-mail July 24, 2011 Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals c/o Angie Conn, Planning Administrator One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Docket Nos.:11050019 SU Amend Lubavitch of Indiana 11060016 V 11060017 V We are residents of Shelborne Greene community (Lot 311) and wish to express our concerns about the Special Use and Variance applications filed by Lubavitch of Indiana. We have raised objections in previous zoning hearings about this project and continue to question how the Board can grant a variance from the required lot width of 200 feet for a project that only measures 135.88 actual width. This represents just two-thirds of the minimum width. We note the Board's previous actions on special use and variance applications: October 23, 2006 The Board defeated by a vote of 2-2 a motion for special use and defeated by a vote of 0-4 a variance for minimum lot width. October 22, 2007 The Board approved motions for special use and variance for the minimum lot width. The Board's approval was based on the fact that Lubavitch of Indiana had modified the site plan, creating a circular drop-off section of the driveway, and deeding the driving lane to the City of Carmel. This increased the linear foot measurement to meet the 200-foot minimum width requirement. It was obvious to us that this convinced Board members to vote in favor of the motion. On July 22, 2011, we reviewed the new proposed revised site plan filed by Lubavitch of Indiana. We noted that there is no longer any circular drop-off section of the driving lane. The lot width in the site plan is 135,88 feet. Hence, it appears to us that the Board should not grant any new variance to the minimum width requirement nor approve any amendment to the variance originally granted in 2007. in a letter dated May 8, 2009, attorney E, David Coots asked that we sign a 'consent form" to agree to modifications in the site plan that would relocate the driving lane to the west side of the building and move the building further east. Mr. Coots stated that "Lubavitch of Indiana has met with adjacent property owners" who requested those changes. We certainly did not request a change. We did not attend any such meeting and could not find any other property owners who recalled a meeting. Furthermore, Mr. Coots included a revised site plan with his letter, which clearly illustrated that there was no longer a circular drop-off section of the driveway that would have enabled Lubavitch of Indiana to comply with the minimum width requirement. We declined to sign the consent form. In a letter to Shelborne Greene neighbors dated June 14, 2010, Rabbi Avi Grossbaum expressed Lubavitch of Indiana's intent to be "good neighbors and good stewards of the land." However, the property has virtually been abandoned over the five years that he has been seeking variances. Neighbors have had to complain to the city's Code Enforcement Department to require the owner to cut the tall grass /weeds and demolish the dilapidated buildings on the property, which represented a serious danger to young children and were an eyesore in the neighborhood. This track record does not give us great confidence that Lubavitch of Indiana would be a "good neighbor or steward of the land" once they complete construction and take occupancy of the new building. We urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny the minimum width variance since it does not comply with zoning regulations and since the site plan no longer contains the circular drop -off driving lane that would be deeded to the City of Carmel. Sincerely, Kathleen and Stephen Noone Conn, Angelina V From: katnoone @aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 3:37 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: July 25, 2011 Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing Attachments: BZA Jul 24, 2011.doc Dear Angie, I've attached our letter to oppose the granting of special use and variance to Lubavitch of Indiana, which is scheduled for a hearing on Monday, July 25. Please provide copies to all Board members for us. Thanks! Kathy and Steve Noone 1 CARMEL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA: Clay Township Regional Waste District Comments Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 Place: Dept. of Community Services Conference Room, 3` Floor, Carmel City Hall. Time: 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.ln. (PP SW) Docket: No. 11060012 PP: Applegate Addition The applicant seeks primary plat approval for 3 residential lots on 0.51 acres. Also, a waiver is requested from the Subdivision Control Ordinance: Docket No. 11060013 SW SCO Chptr 6.05.01: lot width at road right of way The site is located at 130 2 °d Street NW, just east of the Monon Greenway. It is zoned R -4 /Residence within the Character Subarea of the Old Town Overlay. Filed by Justin Moffett of The Ol.d Town Design Group. -Out of CTRWD service area. 9:10 a.m. (DP) Docket No. 11060014 DP: Meridian Main II The applicant seeks development plan approval for commercial and office uses on 26.8 acres. The site is located at 1304 W. Main St., and is zoned a mix of OM /MU Old Meridian Mixed Use on the southern portion and B- 6/Business and US 31 Corridor Overlay Zone on the northern portion. Filed by Jamie Browning for Meridian Heights Associates, LLC. Out of CTRWD service area. Note: For these items, below, the petitioners will work with each TAC member individually (and not attend an actual meeting): A.) (SU,V) Lubavitch of Indiana Worship Center. The applicant seeks the following special use re- approval: Docket No. /1050019 SU Amend: ZO Ch. 5.02 Permitted Uses, Religious Uses in a Residential District. Two development. standards variances are also requested: Docket. No. 11061)016 V ZO Ch. 5.04.113.E Minimum lot width, 200 feet Docket No. 11060017 V ZO Ch. 26.02.118 25 -ft. side yard building setback for churches „:schools, etc. 'Ihe site is located at 2640 W 96 Streefand is zoned SI /Residential. Filed by E. Dais Coons of Coos Henke Wh.eeter., PC for Lubavitch of Indiana. 'Submitted comments and c i:r'i erit v working with Engineer wa t ing on resiibmitta; and B.) Docket No. 11060018 ADLS Amend: Parkwood Crossing West Granite City Patio Enclosure. The applicant seeks design approval to enclose the current outdoor dining area. The site is located at 150 W. 96` and is zoned PUD /Pl.anned Unit Development. Filed by Nick Fox of Fox Consulting, Inc. No concerns with the patio enclosure. Page 1of1 WWWCARMEL.IN.GOV ONE CIVIC SQ. CARMEL. IN 46032 (317) 571 -2417 VKP. I EL July 14, 2011 JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR Mr. Gregory S. Snelling, P.E. Snelling Engineering, LLC 13295 Illinois Street, Suite 142 Carmel, IN 46032 RE: Lubavitch of Indiana- Project Review #1 Dear Mr. Snelling: The City received your construction plans on May 26, 2011. The project is not scheduled for review at the Technical Advisory Coinmittee meeting. We offer the following comments: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. These comments represent the Department of Engineering's first review of the preliminary developmentplans for this project.. 2. We request that all responses to our comments be provided in writing and be accompanied by a drawing reflecting the requested revisions. Failure to provide written responses may result in the delay of the review process. 3. It is critical that this office be made aware of all modifications made: on the plans being re- submitted particularly if any such changes are considered "new" or fall outside of our previous reviews. •Please provide plans including all revisions. Please notify us of any changes and specifically state any changes, including changes resulting from Plan Coinmission; BZA or'other committee meetings. 4. We have engaged Crossroad Engineers, PC to review all'drainage plans and drainage calculations submitted to this office for review. If yeti have not already done so, please provide a set of drainage plans and calculations to their office for review. We will share Crossroad's cemrnents as they are received. 5. Final drawings will not be approved for construction until: a. Alt. Engineering Department and Utility Department and Hamilton County Surveyor issues have been resolved. b. All bonds and.performance guarantees are posted. c. All Board of Public; Works and Safety approvals and any other governing agency approvals (i f required} are obtained. d.. All off -site easements necessary to instaall.utilities to serve the development are secured. e. SWPPP is approved. `11 All :fees:lire pant. 6. The DrpanfILCJA reserves-the right to provide additional corrirrients based upon subsequent reviews. 7. An approved Storm Water Management Permit is required prior to commencing any earth disturbing activity. Please contact Mr. John Thomas regarding storm water quality requirements. 8. An approved right- of:way permit is required prior to commencing any work in the public right-of-way. 9. if it will be necessary to relocate existing utilities, the costs for such relocation shall be borne solely by the developer. Any utility poles requiring relocation shall be relocated to within one-foot of theoutside edge of the proposed right -of -way. 10. The Department requires that the construction drawings be developed in accordance with the City of Carmel digital submission standards and that all required submittals for primary plat, DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2441 FA,x 317.571.2439 EivIAIL engineering(5canncl.in.gov Mr. Gregory S. Snelling, P.E. July 14, 2011 RE: Lubavitch of Indiana Project Review #i Page2of5 secondary plat, and construction drawings:be made. The digital files must be submitted to the Department of Engineering prior.to'the approval of the construction plans. Please contact the City GIS Department for the requirements. 11. Jurisdictions: a. The project site is located within current City of Cannel Corporate Limits. b: Perimeter Street and Right -of- Way City of Carmel (96' Street). c. Water City of Carmel Utilities d. Sanitary Sewers Clay Township Regional Waste District e. Storm Sewers /Drainage City of Carmel. f Legal Drams Hamilton County Surveyor's Office. 12. Drawings submitted for approval: a. The design engineer must certify all drawings submitted for final approval. b. This office will require 9 sets of drawings for approval after all issues have been resolved. The drawings will be stamped as approved and signed by the City Engineer and by Carmel Utilities. The Owner Will receive 3 sets, one of which must be maintained on the construction site at all times. If this project is subject to review and approval by the Hamilton County Surveyor's Office, a total of 11 sets will be required for final approval. 13. Carmel Utilities will provide separate reviews of this project for water issues. Please assure that copies of all drawings are sent to Paul Pace Paul. Arnone Carmel Utilities Distribution Carmel Utilities Collection 3450 West 131 Street 901 North Range Line Road Westfield, IN 46074 Carmel, IN 46032 14. Carmel Utilities subscribes toOc`Holey Moley" who should be contacted directly for all water main locations. 15. The following items will be sentelectronically upon request regarding this correspondence and project: a. Project Approval Checklist b: Perfornance /Maintenance Guarantees c. 'Utility Jurisdictions /Right of Way Permits d_ Availability (acreage) Fees BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY 16. A schedule for Board of Public -Works and Safety meeting dates and agenda deadlines will be sent electronically for your use upon request. Please use the Engineering Department deadlines for;subrnissions"to the Board: 17. Any submission to the Board reqrnres prior approval by:the Carmel Clay Plan Comrnission aid /or the Board. of Zoning Appeals (if applicable) and_eompletion of review by the T €.e Advisory _Contrnittee. Alt written requests to:be placed :ors the Beard's agenda must "inein4e -the aPp iPtiate 1't eket ::N rm er and the date (or dates) of approval by the Plan Conrriissien a€id or the Board of Zoning Appeals fapplicablej. 18. Water Availability and' Sanitary: Sewer approval :from the'13oard will be.required. This is an EDU approval based upon the proposed use of the site Reference Items #33 to #35 below for additional details explanations. Please note that if an entryway or other irrigation system is planned for this development,, additional Water. Availability Approval from the'Board will be required and additional Water Connection. Fees will .be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system as determined by the Director of Carmel Utilities. 1 9. Comrnercial Curb Cut Approval: 8'V2 x 11 exhibits with the request tor approval.. Provide all pertinent information including lane widths, overall width, radii, lane markings, location of opposing drives or streets, relationship to the location of cut, etc. Mr. ,Gregory S. Snelling, P.E. July 14, 2011' RE: Lubavitch of Indiana- Project Review 41 Page 3 of 5 20. Temporary Construction Entrance Approval. It appears the planned construction entrance is located at the site of a permanent curb cut planned on 96' Street. Therefore, a separate approval from the Board will not be required. 21. The installation of anypermanent, privately owned and /on maintained improvement (signs, decorative,streetsigns walls, streetlights, etc.) within: dedicated right of way or dedicated easements requires the execution of a Consent to Encroach Agreement between the Owner and the City of Cannel. Such agreements are by'the Board of Public Works and Safety. The City Engineer may approve irrigation systein. agreements. 22 Secondary Plat approval if applicable. All perfonnance guarantees must be posted prior to submission of 'fsecondar plats for Board of Public Works; and'Safety approval. 23. Dedication. of right -of -way if not platted. This is based; upon. the City of Carmel 20 -Year Thoroughfare _Plan requirements. Dedication docu nentsare available upon request. Please be advised that. all Right-Of-Way Dedications must be accompa,nied.by a Sales Disclosure Agreement completed by the owner for the property being dedicated the City. The dedication document cannot be recorded without a completed: Sales Disclosure: The form is available upon request. 24. Any open pavement cuts of 96` Street will require Board approval: BONDING REOUIREMENTS• 25. Please contact, Mr: Dave Barnes to review performance. guarantee requirements. Please contact Mr JohnDuffyto review water and: sanitary sewer bonding.requireinents. 26. The amount oftbe Performance Guarantee is based upon a certified Engineer's Estimate for 100% of the cost.of labor and materials to construct the individual improvements, to be provided'by the design engineer. Please provide detailed Engineer's Estimates for each improvement including quantities, unit costs, pipe sizes, and. materials, etc. 27. Upon completion and release of individual Performance :Guarantees, a.three -year Maintenance Guarantee will be "required (see Street Sign, 'corninents above).. The Maintenance Guarantee amount is based upon 15% of the Performance amount for Streets and Curbs and 10 %;of the Performance amount for all other iniprovernents. 28. Perfonnance Guarantees may be Performance or Subdivision Bonds or irrevocable Letters of Credit. 29. Please reference the available enclosures for more detailed explanation of our procedures. RIGHT OF WAY PERMITANB.BONDING 30. Any work in the dedicated right -of way will require an approved Right -of -Way Permit and a License &,Pennit.Bond. 31. The bond.arnount is determined by our. Right-of-Way Manager: However; if the work is included in the scope ofwork ofarequired and posted:Perfonnance.Guarantee, the -Performance Guarantee may be used to satisfythe bond requirements oftheRight -of -Way Permit. J? :se contact a ur Right-of-Way Manager F red Glaser, to arrange right-OPway permitting and bonding. AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION FEES 33. We defer 10 Carmel Utilities regarding this issue. 34. If an entryway or overaltsite irrigation system is planned for this development, additional' Wat, Connection Fees will be assessed based upon the size and usage of the system and up recommendations of the Director ofCarmel'Utilities. 35. These fees` are required to be paid prior to.final approval of construction plans:by Engineering. and prior to issuance of building permits by Building Codes Services. Please confinn these fees and calculations with Carmel Utilities. CONSTRUCTION DRAWING "REVIEW COMMENTS Mr. Gregory S. Snelling, P.E. July 14, 2011 RE; of lndianaLProject Review 4.1 Page 4 of 5 36. General Comments a. This project is subject to the City's Storm:.Water Management and Storm Water Quality Ordinances. b. Please add the following note.to'the drawings: IF iT WiLL BE NECESSARY TO RELOCATE EXISTING iUTILITIES, THE EXPENSE OF SUCH RELOCATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILIT.Y OF THE DEVELOPER. ALL UTILITY POLES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN, ONE FOOT OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT -OF- WAY." 37. Please add note stating ‘`.1\10 EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITY MAY COMMENCE. WITHOUT AN APPROVED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT" to construction set. 38 Are there any existing easements? Proposed easements did not appear to be indicated: 39. Confine all known-existing utilities are indicated with relevant inforniation (T. C:, i.E., pipe size and type, direction of flow). 40. Please;add note as required in Storm Water Technical Standards. Manual Section 102 "Permit Requirement and Procedures," Article 102.02 vii pertaining to construction and, approval of storm: sewer systems to all storm. sewer plan and profile sheets. 41. All swales on site must. sub surface pipe: installed. Pipe to conform to requirements of Storm Water Technical Standards Manual and shall be double wall, HI -Q pipe. 42. Please:omit Sheet L1.0, Landscape Plan;. SheetLl.1,.Landscape Details and Specifications; and Sheet S E L.0, Photometric Plan from construction sets (and their. Index),; to be subinitted for review by this department: The Department'. of Engineering does not have approval authority over landscape plans photometric plans. 43. Sheet C000 Title Sheet. a. Please remove; the titles for the Landscape Plan, Landscape. Enlargement Plan, and Lighting Plan from the Drawing Index. 44. Sheet C002 Specifications. a: Please include the City's curbing and paving`policies: 45. Sheet C1.02 Tree Protection Site Demolition Plan. a. Please provide the note: SAWCUT EXIS'T'ION PAVEMENT TO CLEAN EDGE WHERE ADJACENT TO NEW PAVEMENT: 46. Sheet C200 Layout Plan. a. Please reference details 11/C704;:6/C704, 1 /C704, 2/C704, and detail 10 -1 1 on sheet C301 with respective keynotes. Nat certain where details on C704 are to be implemented. b. Please provide easements for the BMPs. c. Please label the existing and proposed right- of -way. 47. Sheet C202 Driveway Plan and Profile. a. Will attempt to .acquire:right o f -way on the south side of 96` Street be made for a passing blister? .4. Sheet £300 Grading :argil Dtahiage Mari. a. Please provide the MLAG, MFPG elevations and their definitions. b. Please indicate the on- site..flood route. and,;if there is off Site drainage;: please: add' this flood route also. c. What is the flood route of the;right -of- -way across entrance? d.. Is there' a swale on the west property line from the middle building north'' e. It is'itot clear on grading plan how drainage along property line is addressed. f. What is the site:outfall? What is,the;capacity? g. All swales: are required to.have subsurface drain. h. Subsurface drains under curbs and gravel shoulders are required within the right- of-way. 49. Sheet C301 96 Street linprovernent Plan and Details. a. Please indicate curbing along edge of auxiliary lane east of the entrance: Mr, Gregory S. Snelling, P.E. July 14, 2011 RE: Lubavitch of Indiana Project Review #1 Page 5 of 5 b. Please provide a concrete apron with depressed curb outside of the auxiliary lanes in the right-of-way. i c. In Note 7, strike "federal, state, county, city, and local codes" and replace with "Carmel standards." d. At the end of Note 10 add "Board of Public Works approval is required for any lane restrictions." e. Please indicate the depth of the gravel shoulder and the requisite subsurface drain in the 96"' Street typical section. f. Key note H- Please revise as follows: "Relocate utility pole to one foot from proposed right -of -way. Coordinate with Duke Energy." 50. Sheet C302 Traffic Maintenance Plan. a. Are naggers needed? b. Please.provide individual dimensions for the buffer and taper. 51. Sheet C600 Site Utility Plan. a. Please relocate structure SA -1 such that it is not in the concrete apron, pavement, shoulder- curb, or multi -use path. 52. Sheet C700 Sanitary Sewer Details. a. Please provide the City's backtill standard for backfilling within the City right -of -way. 53. Sheet C704 -Site: Details. a. In details 11 /C704, 6 /C704.,and 1/C704, provide notes that the maximum spacing between transverse expansion joints is to be 50 feet and the maximum spacing between transverse control joints is to be 10 feet on tangent sections and 5 feet on radius sections. b. In details 1,l /C704 and 1/C704, please revise the height of the straight curb from 18 inches to the City standard of 22 inches. c. Please add the City's depressed curb detail. If you have questions, please contact me at 571 2441. Sincerely, Gary R. 0 tca P.E. Assistant ity Engineer Department of Engineering cc: Angelina Conn, Department of Community Services John Duffy, Carmel Utilities Paul Pace, Carmel Utilities Paul Arnone, Carmel Utilities Greg Hoyes, Hamilton County Surveyor's Office Greg Ilko, Crossroad Engineers, PC issvrapps1user data V:lsharetDHILLIPROJRGVI 111.1JI3AV1TCHOFINDI ANA NRI Vt?1 g4567 MEM ORANDUM (D I e• 4 9S To: BZA Secretary Connie Tingle From: E. avis oots /jc Date: July 13, 2011 Subject: Docket Nos. 11050019 SU Amend, 11060016 V and 11060017 V Lubavitch of Indiana BZA Packets Enclosed are thirteen BZA Packets with regard to the above referenced Docket Numbers. Please return four file- marked copies to us. Thank you. Coots Henke Wheeler, P.C. 255 E. Carmel Drive Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 844 -4693 M:\EDC\LUBAVITCH OF INDIANA.16759\2011\memo to BZA.wpd\ Conn, Angelina V From: katnoone @aol.com Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 9:00 AM To: Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: Lubavitch of Indiana Attachments: 100 1554.JPG Dear Angie, Thank you so much for the update. That is good news about the demolition of the building. I appreciate you sending the message "after hours." I have attached a picture of the building in case you didn't see one in the file. This is what one sees from 96th Street. Quite a mess, I'd say. Thank you again for sending the inspector out ahead of schedule. Everyone in our neighborhood and across the street in the condos will be so glad when that place is gone. Now, I guess we wait to see what Lubavitch has planned this time. This will be the third go- around with the zoning board. It REALLY is TOO narrow a property for any kind of large building! Sincerely, Kathy Noone Original Message From: Conn, Angelina V <Aconn @carmel:in.gov> To katnoone <katnoone @aol.com> Sent: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 6:53 'pm Subject: Re: Lubavitch of Indiana Kathy, I think a'demolition permit was just issued for the house, through the building permits dept. and they have filed amended construction plans for the worship center. They will also file for a new special use approval from the bza, since the prior special use approval has expired. Stay tuned... Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone Reply message From "katnoonereaol com" katnoone@aol com> Date: .Sri, Jun 10, 201i3 ;24 pm Subject Lubavitch of Indiana To: A w n c. r. e _9` L' "-i`i'i nnn a mel i3➢ gCS'v' Dear Ms. Conn, I was wondering if you ever learned anything at all about the Lubavitch property on W. 96th Street. In early July of last year, they were feverishly destroying all of the vegetation (except the large trees) from the property to prepare for construction. We lost most of our small animal population. However, no construction took place. I believe I was in contact with you in February about an inspector who was supposed to be checking the very dilapidated and dangerous building that is on site and visible from 96th Street. He was due to go out the week or April 15 and-I believe you were going to try to get him sent out the first week in April on a rush assignment. I was wondering what the inspector had to say about the dangers in letting a 1 building like that stand for so long. It has been years and years and it just gets worse. I can't imagine what would happen to a child who would wander into that place or teenagers who might be tempted to congregate there. Who knows who has been snooping around inside when it was empty for years before it was partially torn down for demolition. Someone even mentioned the words "meth lab" to me. What kind of wild animals might have been in and out of the building. We know there were coyotes back on that property for many years. There is broken glass and torn siding. Plus, it is an absolute horrible eyesore. However, DANGER is the word that keeps popping into our minds. It is now June 10, two months after the scheduled inspection and nothing appears to have been done. Is there something in the works? Please advise if you would. It would be greatly appreciated. We lived with an extremely ugly and desolate landscape all winter to the east of our lot and now the weeds and other growth are going crazy with all of the rain. Much of what they cut down and plowed under has come back with a vengeance. Before, it was a peaceful meadow -like area and now it just looks wild and full of weeds. The Indianapolis Star has a section where properties much better than this are featured as "blight." The public is able to send pictures and complaints in the hope that something can be done to eradicate the problem. I doubt that the Carmel government staff would enjoy seeing this property featured in The Current. I suppose most people would think that nothing like this exists in Carmel. I know we were just annexed into Carmel, but we ARE Carmel and I can't believe that this situation would be tolerated in the northern or eastern parts of the "old" Carmel. HELP PLEASE! Thank you for anything that you can do about this deplorable situation. Most sincerely, Kathleen A. Noone 870 -7513 2 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:25 PM To: 'Greg Snelling' Subject: Review comments for Lubavitch site revisions docket no. 11050019 Good afternoon, Greg Below are the preliminary review comments from the Planning /Zoning Dept. 1.. Will the exterior building architectural elevations be the same as the 2007 petition? If not, please provide to— scale building elevations of all 4 sides. 2. Will the exterior lighting fixtures the same as the 2007 petition? If not, please provide the light fixture design details and heights. 3. Most likely you will need•to submit a Special Use Amendment application. For now, please submit a TAC application. 4. Please show /label the 25 -ft side yard building setback lines, per Zoning Ordinance section 26.02.08. The building will probably need to shift east a few feet. 5. The lot width for this special use needs be greater than or equal to 200 -ft, similar to the layout of the 2007 petition, showing 2 lots. This is per Zoning Ordinance Section 5.04.03.E.. 6. Please provide a parking ratio breakdown: 7. Please provide the dumpster enclosure details. 8. Please provide the mechanical equipment screening details. This also includes gas and electrical meters. 9. Will the signage be the same as the 2007 petition? If not, please provide the signage design and dimensions details. 10. The 2007 approval had a condition that the petitioner would work with our Dept. on screening, specially the parking lot screening, the knee wall along the parking lot and evergreens to block the parking lot illumination and lights from car headlights from the neighbors to the west. Please provide details and locations of the knee wall. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Flr. Carmel, IN 46032 0: 317- 571 -2417 1 F: 317- 571 -2426 1 E: aconn(a)carmel.in.gov W: www.carmel.in.gov /services /DOCS /DOCSDOPZ.htm Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:16 PM To Hollibaugh, -Mike P; Conn, Angelina V Subject: Re: Expired BZA approvals for Lubavitch site, 2640 W 96th St. To. snake it relatively painless, we could put it on a hearing officer agenda. And Leo D. can still be a hearing officer. John From John R. Molitor, Attorney at Law From: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 0:28:14,-0400 To: Conn, Angelina V<Aconn @carinel.in.gov> Cc: <imolitor @prodigy.net> Subject: RE: Expired BZA approvals for Lubavitch site, 2640 W 96th St. Angie, Do we really need to send these folks back to the board? When I met with Dave Coots and the Rabbi in February, I felt at the time that they appeared to have been moving forward on this since their approval, although probably not in the typical manner that we see normally. They have been working to refine the plan to be more environmentally friendly; met with us to update progress and discuss the new plan; worked through the annexation transition between Hamilton County and Carmel Engineering; done some site work (which got tagged); updated the neighbors on their plans; and demo'd the house (after receiving complaints)... all the time committed to moving forward with their temple... If they really need to I'm ok to give Dave that call; but if we can determine they are ok based on the above, my preference is that we consider their activity the equivalent of continuous construction... Let me know what you think, Mike From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3 :13 PM ,To: 'rabbi @iubavitchindiana.com' `Lul v €tchfn€l na co castTnet'; °Dave Coots'; Hollibatigh, Mike P; 'John itor'; 'Greg Snelling' Subject Expired BZA approvals for Lubavitch site, 2640 W 96th St. Good Rabbi Grossbaum: The Technical Advisory, Committee members have received the latest construction plans for this site. Thank you. Our department will issue review comments within a few weeks. However, I wanted to let you know that your past Special Use approval (Docket no. 07070012 SU) from the BZA expired a few years ago (per the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.02.07), since you did not commence continuous construction of the project within a year after the October 2007 approval.. This means that you need to seek new BZA approvals: Special Use approval for a place of worship and variance approval for the lot width. The good news is that when you re- apply for BZA'approvals, the 2007 approval will serve as a precedent for the Board when it hears your new petition. 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Conn, Angelina V Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:13 PM To: 'rabbi @lubavitchindiana.com' Cc: 'Lubavitchlndiana @comcast.net'; 'Dave Coots'; Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'John Molitor'; 'Greg Snelling' Subject: Expired BZA approvals for Lubavitch site, 2640 W 96th St. Attachments: status of proposed Lubavitch church? Good afternoon, Rabbi Grossbaum: The Technical Advisory Committee members have received the latest construction plans for this site. Thank you. Our department will issue review comments within a few weeks. However, I wanted to let you know that your past Special Use approval (Docket no. 07070012 SU) from the BZA expired a few years ago (per the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.02.07), since you did not commence continuous construction of the project within a year after the October 2007 approval. This means that you need to seek new BZA approvals: Special Use approval for a place of worship and variance approval for the lot width. The good news is that when you re- apply for BZA approvals, the 2007 approval will serve as a precedent for the Board when it hears your new petition. Unless opponents can prove that conditions have significantly changed since 2007, you should expect to receive Board approval for the special use, once again. Below are links to the two applications: Special Use for place of worship: http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us/ services DOCS /D.00SPCA2011PDFapplications/ Special %20Use %20Application %202011.pdf Development Standards Variance for lot width: http: /www.ci.carmel.in.us/ services DOCS /DOCSPCA2011PDFapplications/ Development %20Standards %20Variance %2 02011.pdf Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Angie Conn, Planning Administrator City of Carmel Planning Zoning Division Dept. of Community Services 1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir. Carmel, IN 46032 v: 317-571-2417 t F; 317 -57. -2 26 s 4�.� E: aconnacarmel.in.gnv W: www.carmel.in.gov /services /DOCSIDOCSDOPZ.htm Please consider the environment before printing e -mail 1 Conn, Angelina V From: Greg Snelling [gsnelling @snellingeng.com] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:28 PM To: Conn, Angelina V; Mindham, Daren; Littlejohn, David W; david.lucas@hamiltoncounty.in.gov; Akers, William P; Huffman, David; Hohlt, William G; Blanchard, Jim E; Green, Timothy J; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Forward for Westermeier, Mark; jason. lemaster @hamiltoncounty.in.gov; brooke. gajownik @hamiltoncounty.in.gov; jason .kirkman @mybrighthouse.com; shirley.hunter@duke energy.com; gary.mcnamee @duke- energy.com; dan.davenport @aes.com; duane .whiting @veoliawaterna.com; rfarrand @ccs.k12.in.us; troy.yackle @sug.com; sk4986 @att.com Cc: Brandon Schreeg Subject: Lubavitch of Indiana 2640 West 96th Street Attachments: C200.pdf; C600.pdf; LP101.pdf Attached are updated site, utility and landscape plans for the subject project. The project was previously reviewed at a Carmel Technical Advisory Committee meeting under Docket No. 07070012 SU. Please review the plans and contact me with any questions or comments. If you need hard copies, please let me know. Thank you. Gregory S. Snelling, PE, LEED AP Snelling Engineering, LLC 13295 Illinois Street, Suite 142 Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 663 -3206 1 Conn, AngelinaV From: John Molitor [jmolitor @prodigy.net] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:37 PM To: Conn, Angelina V Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Re: Lubavitch worship use special use expired? Angie Section 21.02.07 says they only have one year to implement a special use or special exception, from the date of BZA approval. (SIDE NOTE: To be symmetrical with the state statute (IC 36 7 4 1109) and the variance time limit (Section 30.05.05), we probably ought to amend this ordinance section to three years.) However, its now been more than three years since the 2007 approval anyway, so my answer to your question is: Yes, they should have to re -apply 'and obtain a new approval- for the special use. As with some other situations we've discussed recently when they re- apply, the 2007 approval will serve as a precedent for the board when it hears,their new application. Unless opponents can prove that conditions have significantly changed since 2007, the applicant should expect to receive board approval for the special use once again. John From: "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov> To: John Molitor <jmolitor @prodigy.net> Cc: "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 1:10 .PM Subject: Lubavitch worship use special use expired? John this item received special use approval on October 22, 2007 and now they want to modify their site plan a bit and get construction started. Since it has been 3 years, should they have to re -apply for the special use approval, or does that time limit only apply to variances? Thanks, Angie 1 'SNELLING ENGINEERING LLC ®f Transmittal 11 2 Minim She ?t, Suite 14' �t (army I IN 4(0)12 RECEIVED PI'r.;I hh 1'0 Fiy:I ■1 (63 -S7()■S 2011 ��ir snEllin em i.om MAY 26 oa DOS ti To: Angie Conn /Alexia Donahue -Wold tpe Da e. May 26, 2011 r DOCS 9S One Civic Square v Z roject: Lubavitch of Indiana Carmel, IN 46032 Docket No. 07070012 SU WE ARE SENDING YOU VIA: Mail Overnight Delivery Courier X Hand Delivery The following: COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 5 -20 -11 Construction Plans THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval For your use X For review and comment As requested REMARKS: The enclosed plans are submitted for your review. Since the project was already presented to the Technical Advisory Committee, we plan to work directly with your office to address questions and comments. Thank you. From: Gregory S. Snelling, PE